SHWETA SHYAM PEDAMKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-2(4) THANE, THANE

O R D E R Per : N.K. Choudhry (JM): This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09/11/2022 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, Ld. Commissioner] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13.

2 ITA 2449/Mum/2023 Shweta ShyamPedamkar 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 184 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that her previous tax consultant who was dealing with the case of the Assessee and had filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner somehow could not purse the case of the Assessee and therefore the Assessee along with her husband approached another tax consultant, Shri Naresh kumar Jiwajka on or around 26/06/2023 who visited the portal of Income-tax department and came to know about passing of the ex- parte order dated 09/11/2022 by the Ld. Commissioner and thereafter who immediately filed the instant appeal.The Assessee being a house wife do not have much qualification and also do not know about the intricacies of income-tax law and therefore was unaware about the passing of the impugned order till 20th June, 2023. It is also a fact that vide summon dated 13/10/2017, husband of the Assessee was summoned by the Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department at Ballard Estate and his statement was also recorded wherein he has informed the department that the share transactions as involved in the instant case were done by other persons, against which the department is making separate enquiry. However, the Assessing Officer, without considering the said facts, passed the assessment order. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and supported by affidavit by the Assessee. As the Assessee is not a highly educated person and also not handled the income-tax portal and/or appeal proceedings directly, but in fact relied upon the actions of the consultant and may be due to mis-communication or otherwise non-communication between the Assessee and her previous tax consultant, remained absent before the Ld. Commissioner. Thus, 3 ITA 2449/Mum/2023 Shweta ShyamPedamkar considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality we are inclined to condone the delay of 185 days in filing the instant appeal. Consequently, the same is condoned.

4 ITA 2449/Mum/2023 Shweta ShyamPedamkar 4. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.